Hearing the Dog Whistle

As a matter of political philosophy, conservatives say they feel that government should be as small as possible while taking care of basic functions. I recently had a conservative intellectual express his view by quoting what Abraham Lincoln once said, "the legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot do so well for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities." I certainly have no dispute with that perspective. That is because it reflects a pragmatic rather than an ideological approach to what government ought to do. If it needs to be done, and people can't do it on their own, then government ought to do it. The rub, of course, comes in determining what needs doing, and in assessing whether individuals or other private entities can do it so well on their own.

These days the right is energized in opposition to President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Tea Party protesters maintain that totalitarianism is on the way, that Big Government for its own sake, or for the sake of controlling people, is in the process of being imposed. Well, let's look at the top issues facing the country these days. To rail against big government is truly to blow the dog whistle for these folks. They understand you are one of them and see the world their way. But what is really needed to solve the nation's current many challenges? Is government action or laissez faire required? We ought to take a look on a case by case basis.

Let's start with the economy. When the financial system crashed in late summer 2008, the Bush administration and congressional Republicans and Democrats agreed a massive bailout had to be instituted to save the economy from a Great Depression. It was done and worked. Candidates McCain, Obama and overwhelming majorities of both parties approved TARP. While there is no doubt greater accountability should have been required, to have sat aside and done nothing would have been catastrophic. The (at least) $700 billion infusion will wind up costing, according to current Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, about $78 billion, as the money is paid back with interest. That saved the national economy for less than the cost of one year of the Iraq War--a bargain.

The Obama-Democratic $787 billion stimulus bill from the spring of 2009 was similar. Anyone who has taken Econ 101 understands Keynesian economics and the need to infuse demand into an economy to head off or alleviate serious recession. It is what every goverment has done since the Depression. Even the Chinese committed a $586 billion USD stimulus to their economy in November, 2008.

The same goes for financial regulation. Does anyone seriously imagine the outfits that precipitated the meltdown with unsound but immediately profitable subprime loans and unregulated derivatives speculation will be able to avoid the temptations of quick buck schemes in the future without regulations to prevent them? How many times does it take? We had the stock crash of '29 when there were no regs back then, another in '87 when deregulation was first instituted, then the S & L crisis and now the financial/housing crash after things were loosened up again. Every time the rules come off the system implodes.

How about defense? Do we defend ourselves against terrorism with more government or less? Military and intelligence assets, homeland security practices and equipment, FBI tasking, liaison with foreign nations at all levels, law enforcement assistance, training, covert action, drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan and such all cost money and require government involvement. Do you know many conservatives against any of these things? Neither do I.

Conservatives are worried about immigration again, since an Arizona rancher was killed, possibly by drug traffickers from across the border. The state legislature just passed a sweeping law allowing police to question anyone they think might be an illegal alien and arrest anyone they so question who does not have evidence of citizenship or permission for legal residency with them. Conservatives in general always seem to favor harsh crackdowns to catch illegal aliens. Does that sound like small government to you? The Archbishop of Los Angeles likens it to Nazi and Communist tactics.

Consider energy independence and climate change. These are essential priorities the market can't solve yet. It is still far cheaper to burn gasoline, diesel and coal than it is to go solar or harness the wind. By the time that changes the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be so high the world will face ecological calamity. In the meantime we remain vulnerable to blackmail or delivery interruptions from abroad. Even weak mileage and emissions standards have resulted in a 25% drop in pollution since 1970 though twice as many cars are on the road. Government requirements and incentives are necessary to get this done.

Health care is another example. Conservatives have a surprising blind spot to advocate police state tactics after one person is possibly killed from across the border but turn a blind eye when Harvard Medical School says 45,000 people have been dying yearly from lack of access to health care. This is clearly something events have shown a lot of people "cannot do so well for themselves."

The list could go on and on. We have a lot of issues that have been festering because they have not been adequately addressed. Left to themselves they have been getting progressively worse. Handwringing about the size of government will not solve any of them. We do not need big or small government; we need the right amount-whatever that is in a specific case-to deal with the many serious problems that need solving.